From the Department of Dirty Tricks

Two opposition researchers working for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee obtained copies of a confidential credit report on Maryland's Republican lieutenant governor, prompting calls for their prosecution.

In July, committee research director Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, a junior staffer, used Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's Social Security number to get his credit report, according to a Democratic official familiar with the case.

The committee, which works to elect Democrats to the Senate, has been compiling research on Steele, Maryland's highest-ranking African-American official, a GOP contender for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes in 2006.

Barge, a Democratic operative who led the research unit for a liberal media watchdog group run by journalist David Brock before joining the committee in February, reported her actions to the committee's executive director, J.B. Poersch Jr., within hours. Poersch relayed the information to the U.S. attorney's office and suspended the pair with pay until Aug. 31, the official said.

Barge and Weiner resigned earlier this month after an internal investigation. Calls to the FBI, which is probing the case, weren't returned last night.

"The lieutenant governor is the victim of identity theft and would like these people prosecuted to the full extent of the law," Steele's chief of staff Paul Ellington said. "They posed as him to get his credit report. We're not going to say they were going to buy a car with the information they got, but a crime was committed."

Fraudulently obtaining a person's credit report is punishable by a maximum of 2 years in prison, according to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Schumer denies any knowledge of this activity. I would urge federal prosecutors to prosecute this matter to the fullest extent of the law, and also examine whether other credit reports were illegally obtained by the group. This is a real serious issue, and identity theft shouldn't be laughed off as a silly mistake, which is how the DSSC wants to play this.

Meanwhile, the ACLU and other privacy rights groups haven't chimed in. I wonder why. Could it be that their politics and privacy positions are for them, and not for their political opponents? Curious.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Technorati: privacy, dirty tricks.